Robust design models for customer-specified bounds on process parameters

Abstract

Robust design (RD) has received much attention from researchers and practitioners for years, and a number of methodologies have been studied in the research community. The majority of existing RD models focus on the minimum variability with a zero bias. However, it is often the case that the customer may specify upper bounds on one of the two process parameters (i.e., the process mean and variance). In this situation, the existing RD models may not work efficiently in incorporating the customer’s needs. To this end, we propose two simple RD models using the ε-constraint feasible region method — one with an upper bound of process bias specified and the other with an upper bound on process variability specified. We then conduct a case study to analyze the effects of upper bounds on each of the process parameters in terms of optimal operating conditions and mean squared error.

Keywords

Robust design / Process bias / process variability / response surface methodology / ε-constraint method / optimization

References

[1] Ames A.E., Mattucci N., MacKonald S., Szonyi G., Hawkins D.M.. Quality loss function for optimization across multiple response surfaces. Journal of Quality Technology, 1997, 29(3): 339-346.

[2] Borror C.M.. Mean and variance modeling with qualitative responses: A case study. Quality Engineering, 1998, 11(1): 141-148.

[3] Box G.E.P., Draper N.R.. Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces, 1987, NY: John Wiley & Sons

[4] Chen C.H.. Set the optimum process parameters based on asymmetric quality loss function. Quality & Quantity, 2004, 38: 75-79.

[5] Cho B.R.. Optimization issues in quality engineering, 1994, OK: School of Industrial Engineering, University of Oklahoma

[6] Cho B.R., Kim Y.J., Kimber D.L., Phillips M.D.. An integrated joint optimization procedure for robust and tolerance design. International Journal of Production Research, 2001, 38(10): 2309-2325.

[7] Cho, B.R., Phillips, M.D. & Kapur, K.C. (1996). Quality improvement by rsm modeling for robust design. In: The 5^th Industrial Engineering Research Conference, 650–655, Minneapolis, MN, May, 1996

[8] Del Castillo E., Montgomery D.C.. A nonlinear programming solution to the dual response problem. Journal of Quality Technology, 1993, 25: 199-204.

[9] Geoffrion A.M.. Proper efficiency and theory of vector maximization. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 1968, 22: 618-630.

[10] Karasakal E.K., Michalowski W.. Incorporating wealth information into a multiple criteria decision making model. European Journal of Operational Research, 2003, 150: 204-219.

[11] Khuri A.I., Comell J.A.. Response Surfaces: Design and Analyses, 1987, NY: Marcel Dekker

[12] Kim D., Rhee S.. Optimization of GMA welding process using the dual response approach. International Journal of Production Research, 2003, 41(18): 4505-4515.

[13] Kim Y.J., Cho B.R.. Economic consideration on parameter design. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2000, 16: 501-514.

[14] Kim Y.J., Cho B.R.. Development of priority-based robust design. Quality Engineering, 2002, 14(3): 355-363.

[15] Kim Y.J., Cho B.R.. Development of priority-based robust design. Quality Engineering, 2002, 14(3): 355-365.

[16] Koksoy O., Doganaksoy N.. Joint optimization of mean and standard deviation using response surface methods. Journal of Quality Technology, 2003, 35(3): 239-252.

[17] Lin D.K.J., Tu W.. Dual response surface optimization. Journal of Quality Technology, 1995, 27: 34-39.

[18] Lin D.K.J., Tu W.. Dual response surface optimization. Journal of Quality Technology, 1995, 27: 34-39.

[19] MATLAB. http://www.mathworks.com/

[20] Mattson C.A., Messac A.. Concept selection using s-Pareto frontiers. AIAA Journal, 2003, 41(6): 1190-1198.

[21] Messac A., Sundararaj G.J., Taapetta R.V., Renaud J.E.. The ability of objective functions to generate points on non-convex Pareto frontiers. AIAA Journal, 2000, 38: 1084-1090.

[22] MINITAB. http://www.minitab.com/

[23] Moghadam M.B.. Application of robust parameter design methodologies. Quality & Quantity, 2005, 39: 175-188.

[24] Montgomery D.C., Myers R.H., Carter W.H., Vining G.G.. The hierarchy principle in designed industrial experiments. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2005, 21: 197-201.

[25] Myers R.H.. Response surface methodology-current status and future directions (with discussions). Journal of Quality Technology, 1999, 31(1): 30-74.

[26] Myers R.H., Montgomery D.C.. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 1995, NY: John Wiley & sons

[27] Robinson R.J., Borror C.M., Myers R.H.. Robust parameter design: A review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2004, 20: 81-101.

[28] Steuer R.E.. Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Application, 1986, NY: John Wiley & Sons

[29] Szidarovszky F., Gershon M.E., Duckstein L.. Techniques for Multiobjective Decision Making in System Management, 1986, NY: Wlsevier

[30] Taguchi G.. Introduction to Quality Engineering. Asian Productivity Organization, 1986, NY: UNIPUB, White Plains

[31] Tang L.C., Xu K.. A unified approach for dual response surface optimization. Journal of Quality Technology, 2002, 34(4): 437-447.

[32] Tind J., Wiecek M.M.. Augmented Lagrangian and Tchebycheff approaches in multiple objective programming. Journal of Global Optimization, 1999, 14: 251-266.

[33] Vining G.G., Myers R.H.. Combining Taguchi and response surface philosophies: A dual response approach. Journal of Quality Technology, 1990, 22: 38-45.

[34] Wu H.H.. A comparative study of using grey relational analysis in multiple attribute decision making problems. Quality Engineering, 2002, 15(2): 209-217.